Cardinal Kasper claims majority support [CC]

[theoda]

I thought one could only get married once(any more would be invalid)? Apparently,Cardinal Kasper doesn’t understand that those not in a state of grace aren’t supposed to receive Communion. It has always been church teaching. The reason his proposal didn’t work is because the Holy Spirit prevented it

 

[JimG]

Since this is an Extraordinary session, it seems the rules are fluid. The original idea was that this session would take the results of the survey that was sent to the dioceses and other pressing issues, discuss them and distill them into a “short list” of pressing issues related to the theme of “The Family” and bring that short list to the ordinary session of the Synod in 2015 right after the World Meeting of Families. The “voting” was supposed to decide what issues were forwarded from the extraordinary preliminary session to the ordinary 2015 session.

That was the ideal. It seems, from an outsider’s perspective, that it turned into something more like a political convention deciding on party platforms. (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, of course) It’s hard to tell since the media that reports all of this is much more familiar with party politics than the workings of the Holy Spirit.

It seems to me from what little I’ve read that even the “survey” questions were slanted toward a particular outcome. But I tend to be a little skeptical on such matters.

 

[McCall1981]

Something I learned recently (and I freely admit I have no idea if this is true for Synod voting) is that at Vatican II, even the contentious documents ended up with literally around 99% approval. In other words, they worked really hard to make sure there was overwhelming consensus.

Don’t know how it works with Synods, but it’s interesting.

 

[Deltadeliquent]

So what does this mean in terms of the 2015 Synod? Since the Pope was the one who insisted these paragraphs be included in the final document, even without the required 2/3 vote that was supposed to apply, does that mean that they are still “on the table” for 2015 and that the vote itself was just for show?

Something rotten in Denmark, methinks…

 

[Corki]

It seems to me from what little I’ve read that even the “survey” questions were slanted toward a particular outcome. But I tend to be a little skeptical on such matters.

You can read the original survey at the end of this document.

scribd.com/doc/180575701/Vatican-questionnaire-for-the-synod-on-the-family

Most of the questions are very open-ended. This was a survey that the Bishops were to answer (with staff assistance). Some diocese turned these questions into a survey for laity or for pastors and those other surveys may have been more slanted.

 

[JimG]

Why does this whole process remind me of the Lambeth Conference of 1930, wherein the Anglican church allowed–for the first time ever–artificial contraception “only where there is a morally sound reason to avoid complete abstinence.”

That tiny opening effectively opened the floodgates for all of Protestantism and all of Western culture.

 

[bolinstephen]

Cardinal Walter Kasper has claimed that although the final votes at the Synod of Bishops were “totally weird,” a majority of bishops would favor his proposal to allow Communion for …

More…

Why does it matter what the Cardinal claimed? At the synod he was proven to be a liar and a manipulator of the press. Now, even the final votes prove him wrong in what he speaks.

How can we trust him again?

 

[OraLabora]

Now, even the final votes prove him wrong in what he speaks.

Well, no they don’t. There was a majority on the issues in question. But it wasn’t a two-thirds majority required for the issues to be carried forward to the next Synod.

He didn’t say two-thirds majority, he meant absolute majority (i.e. 50%+1) which was the case.

On divorce and remarriage, the vote tally was 104 for, 74 opposed, or a 58% majority.

On welcome to homosexuals, it was 118 for, 62 opposed, just shy of a 2/3 majority.

 

[One_point]

Well, no they don’t. There was a majority on the issues in question. But it wasn’t a two-thirds majority required for the issues to be carried forward to the next Synod.

He didn’t say two-thirds majority, he meant absolute majority (i.e. 50%+1) which was the case.

On divorce and remarriage, the vote tally was 104 for, 74 opposed, or a 58% majority.

On welcome to homosexuals, it was 118 for, 62 opposed, just shy of a 2/3 majority.

Are you sure what bishops voted for was “Welcom to homosexuals”? Personally what I read was something very different fro the relatio. The only positive thing was that they should be treated with respect and sensitivity.The rest was that homosexuality was a problem faced in catholic families and no comparion can be made between gay unions and heterosexual marriage even by long shot. That’s what got 66% 118 votes, which is perfectly in line with catechism.

 

[McCall1981]

Well, no they don’t. There was a majority on the issues in question. But it wasn’t a two-thirds majority required for the issues to be carried forward to the next Synod.

He didn’t say two-thirds majority, he meant absolute majority (i.e. 50%+1) which was the case.

On divorce and remarriage, the vote tally was 104 for, 74 opposed, or a 58% majority.

On welcome to homosexuals, it was 118 for, 62 opposed, just shy of a 2/3 majority.

The vote was not on the “issue” itself, it was on whether to include a paragraph that mentions both the pro and con Kasper arguments. The paragraph in question was just a record of what was discussed, and it asked for more discussion.

As Kasper himself puts it:

“As far as the concluding document goes, the voting was totally weird. The point concerning the remarried, which did not achieve the required majority, was indeed not my position. The determination on this point should have concerned a choice between two positions: the traditional and then mine. One could not even vote for one or the other, but rather only affirm that the synod discussed both. But some of the synod fathers did not even want that to be known to have been determined, for whatever reason. But my proposal has therefore not been rejected.”

He uses the fact that the vote was not on his issue to assert that his issue was not rejected. But he also admits that the vote rejected even affirming the discussion the issue.

If the vote rejected affirming the discussion of the issue, it seems to me that would mean it is more likely that the issue itself would have been rejected.

The same goes for the homosexuality paragraph.

 

[bolinstephen]

A few years ago, the credit rating of the United States was downgraded because there was a discussion of not raising the debt ceiling to pay back our loans. The thought that there is even a discussion of an abandonment of Catholic teachings is an anathema that will curse the Church for years to come.

The key descriptors of the Church is that she is “one, holy, Catholic and apostolic.” To have a discussion that would change the Church would destroy her in her unchanging and eternal nature as the one bride of Christ.

 

[OraLabora]

Are you sure what bishops voted for was “Welcom to homosexuals”? Personally what I read was something very different fro the relatio. The only positive thing was that they should be treated with respect and sensitivity.The rest was that homosexuality was a problem faced in catholic families and no comparion can be made between gay unions and heterosexual marriage even by long shot. That’s what got 66% 118 votes, which is perfectly in line with catechism.

I was just using general terms to describe the two contentious paragraphs in the report. The report is available in Italian on the Vatican website.

Here’s rough translation of the portion of the paragraph on homosexuality concerning how we are to relate to them (courtesy of Google Translate):

Nevertheless, men and women with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect and sensitivity.

The verb “accolti” was used in Italian, which in English directly translates to “welcomed” (again according to Google translate; I don’t speak Italian). In French (my native tongue), “accolti” translates to “accueilli” which does mean “welcomed”.

So in fact in Italian it does say “welcomed”. Even though the paragraph contains nothing that isn’t orthodox as far as I can tell, it just barely fell short of the 66.6% needed to pass.

If the English report says something different than “welcomed”, it isn’t accurate.

 

[McCall1981]

I was just using general terms to describe the two contentious paragraphs in the report. The report is available in Italian on the Vatican website.

Here’s rough translation of the portion of the paragraph on homosexuality concerning how we are to relate to them (courtesy of Google Translate):

The verb “accolti” was used in Italian, which in English directly translates to “welcomed” (again according to Google translate; I don’t speak Italian). In French (my native tongue), “accolti” translates to “accueilli” which does mean “welcomed”.

So in fact in Italian it does say “welcomed”. Even though the paragraph contains nothing that isn’t orthodox as far as I can tell, it just barely fell short of the 66.6% needed to pass.

If the English report says something different than “welcomed”, it isn’t accurate.

Yeah, the unofficial translation I’ve seen floating around online says:

“Nevertheless, men and women with homosexual tendencies must be welcomed with respect and gentleness.”

So this one uses “welcomed” like you said, and has “gentleness” replacing “sensitivity”.

 

[McCall1981]

Yeah, the unofficial translation I’ve seen floating around online says:

“Nevertheless, men and women with homosexual tendencies must be welcomed with respect and gentleness.”

So this one uses “welcomed” like you said, and has “gentleness” replacing “sensitivity”.

For the record, I think “welcomed” is perfectly orthodox here. The only word I had a problem with in the first version was “value” when it said the homosexual orientation must be accepted and “valued”.

 

[Seraphim73]

For the record, I think “welcomed” is perfectly orthodox here. The only word I had a problem with in the first version was “value” when it said the homosexual orientation must be accepted and “valued”.

They could have just added the word “with” and there wouldn’t have been such a dust up.

 

[Sy_Noe]

They didn’t vote on Card Kasper’s proposal. They voted on whether to include a paragraph that contains both the pro and con Kasper arguments.

The ones that voted to include the paragraph were not voting for Kasper’s proposal, they were voting for the inclusion of a record of what had already been discussed, and allowing further discussion of the topic. So approx 40% didn’t even want it on the table for discussion. The remaining 60% are divided between those that are ok with discussion but are against the proposal, and those that are for the proposal. We don’t really know the ratio between these two groups.

Besides Card Pell said only three of the ten groups approved of the proposal, and that “very few, certainly not the majority” supported the proposal.

So it’s Kasper’s word against Pell’s.

For faithful Catholics I’d think the only word that will matter in the end is what the Holy Father Pope Francis ends up saying.

 

[OraLabora]

Yeah, the unofficial translation I’ve seen floating around online says:

“Nevertheless, men and women with homosexual tendencies must be welcomed with respect and gentleness.”

So this one uses “welcomed” like you said, and has “gentleness” replacing “sensitivity”.

The Italian report uses “delicatezza”, which in French is “délicatesse”. It’s hard to find a direct English translation for it, but either “sensitivity” or “gentleness” come reasonably close.

 

[McCall1981]

They could have just added the word “with” and there wouldn’t have been such a dust up.

Oops, I had just deleted that post, but yeah, “value” was the only word I had a problem with.

I took “accept” to mean “accept that this is the reality of the situation”. Though I suppose you could take it as meaning “approve of”, in which case I think it would be problematic.

 

[OraLabora]

Oops, I had just deleted that post, but yeah, “value” was the only word I had a problem with.

I took “accept” to mean “accept that this is the reality of the situation”. Though I suppose you could take it as meaning “approve of”, in which case I think it would be problematic.

It’s neither. In Italian it’s “welcome”. It means the welcoming of a person, in this context, and not the orientation. For the latter, it could mean the “reality of the situation”, but the in the context the sentence clearly says it is the “men and women” with homosexual tendencies that we must welcome (and not just “accept”, which is a poor translation), not a “situation”.

It’s important not to depersonalize the text because that clearly isn’t the intent of the context.

 

[McCall1981]

It’s neither. In Italian it’s “welcome”. It means the welcoming of a person, in this context, and not the orientation. For the latter, it could mean the “reality of the situation”, but the in the context the sentence clearly says it is the “men and women” with homosexual tendencies that we must welcome (and not just “accept”, which is a poor translation), not a “situation”.

It’s important not to depersonalize the text because that clearly isn’t the intent of the context.

Sorry, I wasn’t clear there, I was referring to the Relatio post disceptationem, the half-way document that got scraped. It said:

“Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?”

In that doc, the only real problem I had was “valuing”, and then depending on how you read it “accepting”.

I’m fine with how the final document read.